[registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] Fwd: Re: Zoom Structural Vulnerability Discovered
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Wed Jul 10 14:00:50 UTC 2019
Hello all. I did bring up issues around the Zoom platform in early June
and I have not yet had a chance to take the issues I see with the
platform any further. But there is a robust discussion going on at NCSG
with the idea below re: a joint recommendation from SO's/AC's for
community input into the choices that are made about platform changes
that affect us so profoundly. Perhaps we should indicate our support for
this sort of action -- through our technology task force.
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Zoom Structural Vulnerability Discovered
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 15:21:51 +0200
From: Jean-Jacques Subrenat <jjs at DYALOG.NET>
Reply-To: Jean-Jacques Subrenat <jjs at DYALOG.NET>
To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
First, a remark: for Adobe, Zoom or other tool providers, ICANN may not
be the single largest client, but it is certainly a significant one
owing to its nature (quasi-regulatory, multi-stakeholder, some parts
geared to non-commercial users).
Then, a recommendation to Chairs of ACs and SOs: ICANN Board and CEO
could be requested to set up a specifications sheet for a desirable
conferencing tool, based on needs expressed by the multi-stakeholder
community, and publish that as a tender. Offers received could then be
reviewed not only by Staff, but in consultation with ACs and SOs.
This would get us closer to what we, collectively, consider as the
appropriate tool for the numerous conference calls held throughout ICANN.
Le 10 juillet 2019 à 14:46:20, Paul Rosenzweig
(paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
<mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>) a écrit:
> This is assuredly right. The change from Adobe to Zoom may, or may
> not, have been right for ICANN and for this group for any number of
> reasons ranging from cost, to security, to scalability and utility.
> But let’s not romanticize Adobe. They are not a terribly secure
> platform generically. As James said, the Zoom response is poor – but
> we can’t hang that around the neck of ICANN org.
> Paul Rosenzweig
> paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com
> <mailto:paul.rosenzweig at redbranchconsulting.com>
> O: +1 (202) 547-0660
> M: +1 (202) 329-9650
> VOIP: +1 (202) 738-1739
> www.redbranchconsulting.com <http://www.redbranchconsulting.com/>
> My PGP Key:
> *From:* NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> *On Behalf Of
> *James Gannon
> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 10, 2019 12:52 AM
> *To:* NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> *Subject:* Re: Zoom Structural Vulnerability Discovered
> Just want to call out that Adobe has likely the worst reputation in
> the entire tech industry when it comes to security, I really would not
> hold them out as either prompt or without serious issues (I believe
> they still hold the record for number of CVSS 9+ vulns).
> Zooms response is poor I agree, but on a data driven comparison it is
> a far more secure platform.
> *From: *NCSG-Discuss <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>> on behalf of Ayden Férdeline
> <icann at FERDELINE.COM <mailto:icann at FERDELINE.COM>>
> *Reply-To: *Ayden Férdeline <icann at FERDELINE.COM
> <mailto:icann at FERDELINE.COM>>
> *Date: *Tuesday, 9 July 2019 at 14:13
> *To: *"NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>" <NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>>
> *Subject: *Re: Zoom Structural Vulnerability Discovered
> That is true, but note that this security researcher notified Zoom of
> the exploit and they were in no rush to repair it. Look at the
> timeline in the Medium post. They only sought to fix it after the
> vulnerability drew media attention.
> Adobe Connect was not perfect but it met our needs and the occasional
> security issues that arose were promptly fixed by Adobe and never as
> serious as this one!
> Best wishes, Ayden
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 18:07, Adeel Sadiq <11beeasadiq at seecs.edu.pk
> <mailto:11beeasadiq at seecs.edu.pk>> wrote:
> Speaking from a technical perspective, no software is perfect or
> bug-free. Its only a matter of time a loophole is found and
> exploited and eventually patched up. If you think Adobe Connect or
> ezTalks were/are free of these architectural issues, think again!
> That's the way we technical community do things.
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2019 at 1:37 AM Ayden Férdeline
> <icann at ferdeline.com <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>> wrote:
> Unfortunately, uninstalling the application does not rectify
> the situation, due to poor architecture (acknowledged by Zoom
> on their blog today). They are working on a fix, now that
> public scrutiny demands one. So disappointing that ICANN has
> put us in this terrible situation.
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 16:15, Vaibhav Aggarwal, Catalyst &
> Group CEO <va at BLADEBRAINS.COM <mailto:va at BLADEBRAINS.COM>> wrote:
> Thanks for this. Till the next Update, I have removed the
> Zoom For Mac Client with immediate effect.
> Vaibhav Aggarwal
> New Delhi
> VaibhavAggarwal.com <http://VaibhavAggarwal.com>
> On Jul 10, 2019, at 12:30 AM, Michael Karanicolas
> <mkaranicolas at GMAIL.COM
> <mailto:mkaranicolas at GMAIL.COM>> wrote:
> Hey - remember when ICANN switched everyone from Adobe
> over to Zoom as a way of enhancing information
> security and data privacy?
> "A vulnerability in the Mac Zoom Client allows any
> malicious website to enable your camera without your
> permission... This vulnerability allows any website to
> forcibly join a user to a Zoom call, with their video
> camera activated, without the user's permission. On
> top of this, this vulnerability would have allowed any
> webpage to DOS (Denial of Service) a Mac by repeatedly
> joining a user to an invalid call. Additionally, if
> you’ve ever installed the Zoom client and then
> uninstalled it, you still have a localhost web server
> on your machine that will happily re-install the Zoom
> client for you, without requiring any user interaction
> on your behalf besides visiting a webpage. This
> re-install ‘feature’ continues to work to this day."
> Read more here:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
-------------- next part --------------
CPWG mailing list
CPWG at icann.org
More information about the registration-issues-wg